Tiassa, which version do you prefer? I grew up on the KJV, and I can't stand the NRE or the NKJV. Sadly I don't read classical Greek, or I'd have that to bitch about as well..

Click to expand...

I use the Revised Standard Version (RSV)↱, which in this case, Mk. 16.15↱, reads, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation". This is also how the New American Standard Bible (NASB)↱ renders the verse, and I mention that one because it is often used in nonsectarian university teaching of Christian history and philosophy, and if I still have an actual paper Bible sitting around, somewhere, it would be that one.

Douay-Rheims↱, the sixteenth-century Catholic translation to English, reflects the topic post, "And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature", as does KJV↱.

Considering the verse and question at hand, "Do any theists preach to animals?" the answer is and always has been affirmative, but it is difficult to figure how to inform properly in answering such a vague and inconsiderate inquiry; Mark 16 pertains to the Resurrection and frailty of faith and for our purposes the answer to the question is actually right there for the reading. In this telling, Mary Magdalene delivers the Gospel unto the Apostles:

But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.

The differences 'twixt the Synoptic Gospels can be argued to reflect politics in history; Elaine Pagels, in The Origin of Satan (1995) discusses the implications of history within the framework of the Gospels; the inclusion of serpents in Mk. 16.18 makes certain sense within that context, as it has particular symbolic value in appeals to both Jews and pagans during an historically transitional period. Toward our end, though, yes, the Holy Spirit can deliver unto serpents; the question was resolved centuries before its asking.

I like your answer for the unquoted part, thanks. Who resolved that question, though?

Click to expand...

The text itself. By the time we get to Saint Francis, who actually preached sermons to animals sometime around the turn of the thirteenth century, we are redundant. The symbolism of handling serpents would be obvious in a Jewish cult asserting the power to defeat Death and Sin alike; the place of the serpent in regional paganism is not so concisely circumscribed, suffice to say it is important, and if we reach out to a semiotic valence it only gets more complicated, but if you can run zero as nil as cipher through ouroboros in mysterium unto infinity, yeah, you're somewhere in the range.

The question is answered in Christ's assertion of handling snakes. Thus, according to the record we have, Christ Himself resolved the question.

Thanks, but what I meant was the editing well after the 'facts' were recorded. Who did that bit? I remain skeptical of the writers of the one and only bible, you know?

Click to expand...

It was done here and there, sometimes overtly and politically, and sometimes within market outcomes. Still, in remaining skeptical of the writers of the one and only bible, what are you actually showing skepticism? The record we have is the record we have; that's the only historical fact, that this is the record we have.

Consider Sideshowbob's↑ bit above, about preaching to the mountains. As a joke, okay, whatever, I'm sure it suits an occasion. As a serious point? Well, why would I take it that way? In the end, the difference 'twixt this, that, and the next is a matter of priorities. Some months ago I asked atheists at Sciforums what they knew about the religions they criticized; it wasn't encouraging, and the most generous assessment is that they are working hard in their war against their own inventions. The topic inquiry fits that form very well, and in its own way, so does Bob's joke. The common link is a really low bar for measuring Poe.

The text itself. By the time we get to Saint Francis, who actually preached sermons to animals sometime around the turn of the thirteenth century, we are redundant.

Click to expand...

Obviously there are people of various cultures and philosophies throughout history that preach reverence towards animals, St Francis apparently one of them, but it’s not a Christian tenet to go talk to the animals to get their souls right for salvation.

Another legend from the Fioretti tells that in the city of Gubbio, where Francis lived for some time, was a wolf "terrifying and ferocious, who devoured men as well as animals". Francis had compassion upon the townsfolk, and so he went up into the hills to find the wolf. Soon, fear of the animal had caused all his companions to flee, though the saint pressed on. When he found the wolf, he made the sign of the cross and commanded the wolf to come to him and hurt no one. Miraculously the wolf closed his jaws and lay down at Francis' feet.

"Brother Wolf, you do much harm in these parts and you have done great evil", said Francis. "All these people accuse you and curse you ... But brother wolf, I would like to make peace between you and the people." Then Francis led the wolf into the town, and surrounded by startled citizens made a pact between them and the wolf. Because the wolf had “done evil out of hunger, the townsfolk were to feed the wolf regularly. In return, the wolf would no longer prey upon them or their flocks. In this manner Gubbio was freed from the menace of the predator. Francis even made a pact on behalf of the town dogs, that they would not bother the wolf again. Finally, to show the townspeople that they would not be harmed, Francis blessed the wolf.

The symbolism of handling serpents would be obvious in a Jewish cult asserting the power to defeat Death and Sin alike; the place of the serpent in regional paganism is not so concisely circumscribed, suffice to say it is important, and if we reach out to a semiotic valence it only gets more complicated, but if you can run zero as nil as cipher through ouroboros in mysterium unto infinity, yeah, you're somewhere in the range.

The question is answered in Christ's assertion of handling snakes. Thus, according to the record we have, Christ Himself resolved the question.

Click to expand...

Preaching to, and having power over are separate issues in regards to animals of any kind. Preaching to people or animals would be in order to persuade them towards a righteous nature. In the case of the serpent, the implied power granted by belief would be to mediate its inherent deadly nature, as well as that of demons, poisons and disease.